the problem is that people like SF and RAW want to ignore the fair uses of the technology

I use torrents to "timeshift" (BETAMAX CASE) viewing rights to a later date, or to "recover/backup" lost files i paid for (321 Studios Software).

both of those fair use rights have been recognized as valid.

AND IF YOU WENT AFTER THE INFRINGING SEEDERS directly or thru their ISP (INTERMEDIARIES) you could guarrentee that would be the only use of the technology.

Trying to kill the technlogy kills those fair use rights as well.

Everything you stated really isnt legimate, you know this your not stupid.If denial makes you feel better then so be it. Legitimate would be something you created and then got back or a company gets files to its other offices around the world. There is no money in that.

That was nice.. you quoted the case ruling.. very nice.. but you left out the part it referenced.. seeing as your quote was a footnote. Here's the part before yours.

Second, this evidence of unlawful objective is given
added significance by MGM?s showing that neither company
attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms
to diminish the infringing activity using their software.
While the Ninth Circuit treated the defendants?
failure to develop such tools as irrelevant because they
lacked an independent duty to monitor their users? activity,
we think this evidence underscores Grokster?s and
StreamCast?s intentional facilitation of their users? infringement.

Third, there is a further complement to the direct evidence
of unlawful objective. It is useful to recall that
StreamCast and Grokster make money by selling advertising
space, by directing ads to the screens of computers
employing their software. As the record shows, the more
the software is used, the more ads are sent out and the
greater the advertising revenue becomes. Since the extent
of the software?s use determines the gain to the distributors,
the commercial sense of their enterprise turns on
high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing

This evidence alone would not justify an inference of
unlawful intent, but viewed in the context of the entire
record its import is clear.
The unlawful objective is unmistakable

The discussion is whether or not Grokster was intentionally facilitating their users bad ways.

This line you took from Ginsburg rather than from Souter (Souter wrote the majority, Ginsburg concurred) and you have misquoted.... That's not what it says at all. Try reading the whole thing. The only part you got right in that whole sentence was the items between the quote marks. The rest is incorrect.

Not True.. for a man that is fighting I am a man.. all men are lefthanded logic, you just did it yourself. when the technology can be used for a noninfinging use then technology as a whole is non-infringing. Completely UNTRUE and WRONG

In Grokster, they address that issue and the court weighs the infringing uses against the non-infringing uses.

In Betamax, the non-infringing was about 10% to 90% but the technology leant itself to how the decision was rendered.

In Grokster, the opposite held true. They ruled that it was overwhelmingly being used for infringing uses. They did not rule that therefore it was acceptable, in fact they overruled the appeals decision saying so and sent it back for review. Ultimately, the ruling was against Grokster to the tune of $50 million in damages.

[/quote]As a person who understands technology who realizes that torrent technology could be used to significantly reduce the cost of backing up files by eliminating redundancies in the backup (instead of backing up windows 100 times you can reconstruct a corrupt dll in the os from the other copies in the network). I would hate to see the technology killed.

I also don't believe the court would rule that copyright holders have a right to create the situation of a majority infringement and then profit from this action to kill what could be a legitimate technology.[/QUOTE]

The technology must prove itself otherwise it will be shut down. All we have to do is prove the infringements and that the technology suppliers intend its use to be illegal. It can start out with the best intentions, but if the users break the rules and the owners do nothing about it, they can be held liable.

Now Gideon you may think Im an asshole but Im fucking tried of having to be extra sweet to have whole rips of my sites taken down only to go back up in a few more days or be told we will take it down but your wasting your time or the bbw themed bt that has over 3000 of my images but there is no way to contact them on the site, so now I have to take my time to chase these motherfuckers. This is my sweat and blood , I paid for the equipment, sat thru the ass numbing classes,dealt with ibill fucking me out of 13 grand,worked the two jobs to get it off the ground only to have it given away so people can make money off of aff/cams and fling ads. Im fucking pissed.

True people can buy singles and that is part of what is killing the record biz. their business model was built on selling albums, not singles. If they spend a ton of money recording an album, making videos and promoting an album then people only the buy the single the record company often never really makes its money back. I think people don't buy singles because they feel like the record company is giving them away free. You get it on the radio or the band's website or MTV for free, they think, "so why should I pay."

This is because they are misguided. If they want to record off the radio, that is an accepted Fair Use. They may not re-distribute this recording. It is not theirs to do with as they wish.

The money has nothing to do with it. From an early age, I knew what was stealing and what wasn't.. They are stealing

I was raised the same way. Also its alot cheaper on itunes, I wanted to buy that jewish rappers first cd.At borders it was like 18 dollars plus tax, I thought not worth it.Went on itunes and it was either 9.99 or 10.99 so there is options.

I just finally saw the movie The Departed. My wife is Irish... so the opening song spoke to her (Irish/Punk... pretty cool)... I didnt' get turned on by the whole album, so I bought two singles.... If they only offered the whole album, I may have considered it.. but they offered singles, so I bought. Seriously people... $2 is too much? (i actually spent like 50 on music last month).

now as far as the single vs album business model. I don't know how I will react until they change. For now, I have the option of the single, so I do that when I don't want an entire album. Honestly, since they didn't have to press a CD and cover art for me, they probably made $1.50 off of me and iTunes the other .50 for processing it. Not a bad profit margin I assume when there is no major overhead for materials.

No, it's you being daft. The RIAA did it this way because it is easier, quicker, and without issue to show that the material was obtained without permission and then reseeded / shared without permission. Anything that she had purchased or had a CD for would be more difficult to prove (qould require to show that they were in fact shared). These files, they just had to show (a) she didn't have any rights to have them, and (b) she place them in her sahre directory and made them available to other Kazaa users.

Don't be so dense as to think that the record companies would for a second suggest that the other 1600+ files were acceptable. The whole idea was to get a court case that could be completed in a reasonable amount of time without getting highly technical. They won.

Move on. You are making a fool out of yourself trying to dance on the head of a legal pin.

I want some of what you are smoking. It is good shit, man!

You cannot timeshift what you didn't yourself obtain. That is to say, in order to timeshift a TV show, example, you need to be the one to record it to start with. Otherwise, the person distributing the file to you is doing so in violation of the terms that were used when he was given the right to view it. That person (especially on torrents) has no way to know if the people receiving the file have the rights to see it, and in fact it is likely that a large percentage of them do not.

Recovering lost files is also a bullshit excuse, and you know it. If you needed a backup copy of a file, you would contact the manufacture for a new disk. In fact, many companies allow registered users access to download updated and such right on their websites. Obtaining a "backup" of software over a network that is both unreliable and extremely slow to download isn't easy to explain. Why would you choose to use the worst possible method to obtain your backups? Also, once again, the person providing those files doesn't have the right to make those files generally available over a sharing system, ergo you have no right to receive the stolen property.

So sorry, your excuses are total, utter, and complete bullshit, and wouldn't stand up for 2 seconds in court.

The other part is that even if we take your examples to the max, they represent less than about 0.0001% of all of the files on most torrent sites. Most of the software titles are hacked, cracked, or come with a software key generator. End users do not have the right to redistribute TV shows (read the credits, your rights are specifically limited), and certainly they cannot redistribute them in cut format (commercials excluded).

All that sums up to say that while torrent trackers, torrent sites, and torrent protocol has legitimate uses, it's illegitimate uses far outweigh the very narrow scope of use.

remember the grokster case:
The torrent site's intentions are clear. They are not there to provide a legal and legit service, but rather to encourage the posting of desirable (and most often illegally sourced) material to drive more users to their sites and to raise ad revenues. The US Supreme court is very clear on this. I don't understand what part you don't get.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending people that download, just trying give some thoughts on why it has become so rampant. I think it is stealing and agree , people are misguided, but these days were are living in times where open theft is often rewarded. look at Youtube. Have the stuff on that site (maybe even more like 80%) is stuff that is copyrighted and people are posting without permission and the guys that made the site made billions. I think the current generation is being raised with the ideal that if it is on the internet it is free, which is screwed up. Somehow people feel that if they aren't taking an item from a store it really isn't stealing. Maybe the RIAA would be better off taking the money they are spending on lawsuits and spending it on some ad campaigns explaining exactly what file sharing is.

by that standard getting a video copy when power went out on my vcr would also be illegal.

you know you are timeshifting the right to view not the content itself.
again as i have already said the recovery right is blunted if the company provides FREE access to getting replacements, companies who allow you do download copies for free as a recovery to content already licienced would be able to argue that this fair use is fully supplied for and the act of sharing their content would not protect by the fair use right of recovery.

I would prefer is rogers had a website that allowed me to download all the tv shows commercial free/ at no charge to recover my lost or damaged copies of tv show i bought a right to view.


They do not fulfil their fair use responsiblities when they don't provide such a download

as to your final point about not having a right to share, that is exactly what we are arguing about, i am saying that the fair use rights of "Time shifting your right to view content" and "recovery of a right to view" grant a limited sharing right (to other people who have that right to view)

based on the legality of sharing video tapes when the power went out.

Using it as leg of your proof is a circular arguement. The courts have never validated that arguement because the RIAA as deliberately excluded it from the case in question.



except that is based on your assumption that "time shifting" and "recovery" rights don't give the right to share. which goes against the established common sense of a jury. If the court establish that such a right was established by the USE OF THE VCR to get a copy of a show that you BOUGHT A RIGHT TO VIEW when your power went out and you failed to make a copy for yourself.

Then a vast majority of the sharing going on is legal (21,000-1700).

Gideon, you are attempting to take 0.000001% cases an broad brush the entire torrent and p2p system with it.

Your right to timeshift applies only to what you record. You may not obtain it from any other source than the original broadcast source. If you didn't record it, you don't have the right to it. Now, nobody is going to complain it you neighbor lends you a tape so you can see the show you missed because you forgot to pay your power bill. But there is a significant difference between that act and your neighbor making 1000 copies and giving them away at the local supermarket.

You don't have "fair use" beyond what you recorded yourself. If you have equipment failure or were unable to watch more than one channel at a time, THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. You didn't gain the rights to obtain in any manner shows that may have been broadcast when you were a cable subscriber. You get to watch one show (and I think rogers will allow you to connect multiple non-digital TVs to their system) and record as many as you like and are willing to pay to record.

You don't have the right to go online and download everything that was on every channel. You only had the right to watch it and record it (or tivo it) when it was presented.

Everything else you say is 100% total bullshit, not backed up by any law. There is no "recovery of a right to view" law for TV.

Software is the same thing. You may have the right to obtain a backup copy from the manufacture. Provided you send the defective media back to the manufacture, I am sure they will send you another copy. Your "right" extends only to your ability to make your own backups. There is no "it must be online to download from the manufacture or I can steal a copy" law.

I really don't know where you get this shit from. There is no "recovery from third party" rights, there is no "right to everything even if you never watched it" rights, and there is no "make widely available online because someone else MIGHT be allowed to use this" rights. Each one of those things would require that the third party break the copyright and violate the limited license they received to do it.

Rather than just talking in circles, can you point to, quote, and explain the laws and judgements you think give you all the rights? Betamax has already been looked at by the courts in the Grokster case and declare irrelevant, so you will need something a little stronger and on point.

Me thinks your entire argument is bullshit you learn on torrent forums.

Gideon, to make you life easier, I figured you might want to read the US copyright law on computer programs:

Pay particular attention to (b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation, because it is clear that non of that can happen without the permission of the copyright holder. Torrents fall under "Other Transfer".

You could read the entire copyright law here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

I would suggest you read section 106 as well. The copyright owner has EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS that are theirs alone unless the specifically contractually grant you rights to do some of those things (like transfer, sell, or lend).

Enjoy the reading.

I feel a little bad for her, but if she was ripping cds and putting them up online, then fuck her....

For example,i have no problem with paying music or movies.But problem is in most cases movies are not avaible to buy or rent.For example take a look at site bittorrent.com.That is legal movie torrent site where you can buy movies.But it is only avaible in USA.And it doesnt have subtitles avaible.So how can you except from me not to download movies from illegall torrent sites?Since that is only way to get them.

Klen, where are you located? What is your native language?

Alex... good post.. I love how when you read copyright law, and then read the cases surrounding what we are talking of, people can still come to the conclusion that what is going on is legal. Amazes me!!!

I swear because it's on the Internet, it's free.... why wouldn't it be?

Hey, there are lots of things I can't get here in the US, but it doesnt' justify taking them without paying for them.

What a bullshit excuse.

When did theft become acceptable worldwide? Did no one grow up with a mother that would beat your ass for taking something that wasn't yours? OMFG!!! Seriously.. does no one have any morals whatsoever?

the act waves all you rights for fair use not just reproduction

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

look no further than teaching (in which you are not only makeing copies but DISTRIBUTING THEM TO THE CLASS)

BETAMAX CASE ADDS "timeshifting" to that list of legitimate purposes

123 Studios adds "backup" and "recovery" to those legitinate purposes.

Peters v Google adds "transitional cache" to those legit purposes


i am going to exclude all people who never bought a right to the content since it is basically the reverse of the RIAA did in this case. Because you have already acknowledged that is legitimate if i want to ignore problematic arguements that distract from the core of my arguement.

two of those newly aquired rights apply to downloading ( "timeshifting" and "recovery")
one "backup" is related to seeding/ uploading.

when i seed to the swarm i am giving a portion of the file to multiple people creating multiple NON WORKING COPIES. Once i am done with my seeding i am no longer involved in the transaction. I have never given a person a full copy in fact is anyone plays the partial copies i have given them will find they will get the error "invalid media type"

so how does X non working copies adversely effect your ability to sell working copies?

now the second part of the transaction "downloading"
in this case two different rights come into play "timeshifting" for missed content and "recovery" for lost content.

as a downloader i request from seeders, effectively claiming i have a right to that file. If those two fair uses do exist (i have bought a right to the content) then the statement is true.

So how does a person getting access to a copy of content that they paid for adversely effect your ability to sell your copies to a person who has already bought the content from you?




the arguement that you must pay the copyright holder multiple times for the same content was made and rejected by the courts in the Rio case and in the Canadian supreme court decision when the CIRA went after infringers in canada.

In the canadian case, we pay a tax on media like CD to cover the copying of songs, asking for infringement payments would be double dipping

I realize you want to double dip as much as possible forcing people to pay multiple times for the same rights. but the courts have disallowed such a claim multiple times.

She should've been using PeerGuardian(Windoze) or MoBlock(Linux). :thumbsup

Gideon, you truly are a fucking moron. Sorry, but you are an idiot. A truly stunning moron.

How the fuck do I even start this? You don't fucking understand the basics, no wonder you are getting the whole thing wrong.

Are you a school? Are you an educator? Are your running a library? NO. None of the stuff you are quoting applies to you as an individual. You need to learn how to read laws and undestand them. It is clear you don't. Those sections DON'T APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS.

That list is education, journalism, or acedemic research. That's it, that's all. A 16 year old sitting in mom's basement trading music files isn't any of those.

So sorry, but 100% of your assertion in this area is obvious BULLSHIT. You lose.

All of those cases are correct, but none of them state "obtaining the material from a third party".

Peters V Google is meaningless in this discussion. Caching in the manner of the google search system isn't anything like file trading. Sorry.

123 studios? I think you mean 321 studios LLC, and when you read the judgement (and if your feeble mind can understand it) you will see that it very much is a major blow against your arguements.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/MGM_v_321...0219_Order.pdf

321 studios made software to copy DVDs, by decrypting and removing the deCSS encoding on the disks. The court ordered them to stop, and also stated that fair use does not apply, DMCA is acceptable, and that this type of decrypting is not permitted.

You can also see the often citied http://digital-law-online.info/cases/60PQ2D1953.htm for more details on all of this.

Again, through all of this, there is no indication that the courts permitted anyone to make copies and distribute them to other people as "backups" for thier content. The court appears only to permit the end user to make copies as needed for their own backup, nothing more.

Nothing in there states "free wide ranging distribution in case of need of backup copies to the general public".

So, so far, all of your points are either against you or severely limit what you are trying to say.

Ding dong. That is reality calling. You need to stop spending your time reading and swallowing whole the bullshit that crowds up the torrent blogs, and start actually honing your reading skills so you can understand actual laws and actual court judgements. Until you get to that point, there is no further discussion possible, because you have now shown clearly that you just don't understand what you are reading.

and again you are choosing to selectively ignore the rules

Nothing in the Section 107 restricts it to waiver of exclusive right to only REPRODUCTION. Yes the copyright act grants you certain exclusive rights
BUT ALL OF THEM ARE WAIVED BY THIS SECTION.

FOR THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR USE YOU HAVE NO COPYRIGHTS, which is the reason if fair use

If i need to distribute your content to comply with my fair use rights, i can distribute it to comply with my fair use rights.

So for example if i am teaching a class of 500 students and i can copy and DISTRIBUTE that copy to all 500 students.

There is no magic number that makes it a crime, it the fact that i am distributing it to people who have a right to the content ( in that case because they registered and paid for that class).


Nothing in the ACT limits it to reproduction only.

and if you want to continue claiming that the ruling did so please show me the exact paragraph of the betamax case that said you were not allowed to give your friend a copy of a show he had bought a right too.

You are amazing.... claiming that Fair Use trumps copyright.... WOW. Where do you go to school or practice law because that is just fucked up.

my favorite part of this link:

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/60PQ2D1953.htm

Universal City Studios v. Corley

"Asserting that fair use ?is rooted in and required by both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment,..... We reject this extravagant claim.?

"...we note that the Supreme Court has never held that fair use is constitutionally required"

You really should read the whole ruling.. it's quite good reading. It addresses the First Amendment protections of computer code (which you have touted) as well as traficking and duplication of content.

Great post Alex... you are my new hero.

another part that I really like.. same case.. in the footnotes.

"Several courts have concluded that such instructions fall outside the First Amendment. However, these conclusions never rest on the fact that the speech took the form of instructions, but rather on the fact that the instructions counseled the listener how to commit illegal acts. See, e.g., Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.,128 F.3d 233, 247-49 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1982)"

Wow.. sounds like your claim that torrent files are protected by the first amendment is pretty kaput. They are after all, only instructions on how to get content that users have no right to distribute.

Gideon, you aren't a teacher. I don't even think you have graduated high school yet.

Until you learn how to read the laws, judgements, and statements from the courts on these subjects, I can't have a clear discussion with you on the topic.

All of your claims of fair use, teachers, and all that is all crap, you know it, it's in the judgements and you choose not to read it or not to understand it.

Does your mother know you visit porn sites?

Hmmmmm found this part very interesting:

Copyright law subsection 117(b) in regards to computer programs (of which perhaps I know applications such as photoshop would be considered but what about .wmv, .mpeg and .avi video files???)

Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. ? Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

So if you offer up your copy for transfer to another user, you are then releasing all your rights to said copy (and original)... which means you must destroy your copy and original.

Also, you can only do this with the authorization of the copyright owner... Hmmmmmmmm..... Doesn't sound like sharing to me... sounds like total transfer of ownership. Sounds like you can't give someone a backup that needs one.... you can only provide them with yours and you must relinquish all rights you have for that transaction to be legal. Interesting.......

Betamax Case
 

Wow.. I am glad you said to go read the whole thing... it's a great read... especially the FAIR USE section. Takes your arguments to a much lower level. Do you and the copyright and content stealing guys at the coffee shop read the rulings before you spout off information from them?? You really should try reading the whole thing first and trying to understand them before you do. You would sound much smarter then.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...page=417#tt 2

Just find the FAIR USE section..... it is section IV.. about 2/3 of the way through the document.

Pretty much says it right there.

Alex.. was that in the Betamax ruling??? I haven't found it yet... I like this one just as much.

Purely consumptive uses are certainly not what the fair use doctrine was designed to protect, and the awkwardness of applying the statutory language to time-shifting only makes clearer that fair use was designed to protect only uses that are productive.

Wouldn't he have read it here? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3330186.shtml, the link provided in the first post of this thread?

Wrong...did you even read the CBS link posted in the very first post of this thread?

Here...i'll save you the trouble of clicking on the linkLooks like around 10k per song to me...how about you?

9250*24=222000
130* (the alleged)1702=221260

thanks for chiming in waaaaayyyyyyyyyy late to the discussion.. read all 4 pages next time. I have already said I misread that part.

If you have read penalties for copyright infringement.... which I have... they can go as high as $150,000 per infringement. Which means if the maximum was enacted on this case you would have 24*150,000=3.6 million.

You appear to be another cry on her shoulder supporter. Step in line behind Gideon.. he's the leader of the hey let's support theft side.

I don't feel sorry for her at all...she got what she deserved.

She was even warned that she was violating copyright law and if she thought she was in the right, why replace the harddrive the next month and then lie and say it was replaced a year earlier? Shady bitch got pulled into the sunlight...

You may want to get to know me before you make assumptions about me...as i already stated...she got what she desrved and i don't where in any of my posts, i'm supporting her.

I don't support any illegal action.

I did read that part...because i read the article BEFORE posting. I could care less about what they "could've" done...i commented on what they chose to do.

Tell me...how could you "misread" the second paragragh? Doesn't it follow the first paragraph? Or maybe you just "scanned" the article like a speed-reader. I just don't see how you could "misread" a whole fucking paragraph...

To tell ya the truth, i think you went back and read the article AFTER all of your posting...then tried to cover your ass (and regain some credibility in the process) by chalking it up to "misreading"...nice but i call bullshit on you "misreading" anything. :1orglaugh

Nice ... it took you 4 messages to answer. You should learn how to multi-quote.

Don't know why you are coming after me. I mis-read it, plain and simple. Call bullshit all you want, I could really care less. I have no idea why you stepped into the discussion because when I read the first time through I got the calculation from the 1700... my error, you really didn't need to call me out on it again, but if you feel better for it, then good for you. No issue here. Maybe instead of coming after me, you could go after the supporters in here that think the theft of copyrighted materials is OK... but hey... if my comprehension at the time of one article gets you all warm and fuzzy.. I am glad to have made your day a little brighter.

Yeah, it is in section IV of the betamax ruling in the majority opinion. You have to be careful with those rulings, because the dissenting opinion (lower down) uses the same numbers, but isn't really an applicable part of the decision. It is interesting to see the judge's thoughts on all of it, the opinions are very detailed and show that, in this case at least, the court was well informed about technology and really considered many opinions.

She replaced the harddrive BEFORE she got a notice from the RIAA. Its a verified fact. She mispoke in court, apparently, and tried to take back the statement later. That definitely didn't help her case at all.

Still cant believe people actually support this kind of ridiculous penalty. What she did should be a misdemeanor at most.

Yeah.. I know on the dissenting part, which is why I said to read it rather than quote it directly.

Actually, the dissent is something that they use in future cases and is an important part of the process... keeps the judges from rehashing the same ol shit all the time... they can just review the thoughts from earlier.. find what they think counts and render the new opinion (but I am sure you knew that anyway LOL).

I really don't understand how someone can look at the case law as well as the statutes and come out with an opinion that the way things are being treated today is legal.

But then again.. everything is legal until you get arrested for it or taken to court....even if it's in the books as wrong. People are willing to push the envelope everywhere..... then we get this whole "common practice" garbage, and everyone thinks it's OK to do something that is just blatently wrong.... I just don't get the moral code of some people... it's beyond me.

I don't care when she replaced the hard-drive... to me it's irrelevant. It's suspicious no matter when she did it.

Who takes something that doesn't belong to them???? Wrong is wrong.

You could piss on the grass at the White House and get sentenced to some serious federal time (I don't honestly know.. but it seems like you would get fucked up pretty bad)..... just because you are ignorant of the penalty, doesn't change the fact that it is there.

You rob the local supermarket that just happens to be the post office.... OH FUCK.. federal crime... life sucks. Why don't you try not breaking the law.. that's a better arguement.

She wasn't caught stealing bread to feed her kids.. she was caught trading goods that don't belong to her. The value of the goods makes no difference.

She was in the position to accept that what she did was wrong, pay a (comparatively) small settlement (probably a few thousand dollars max) and all of this would have gone away.

The idea of this sort of penalty is to recover at last some of the potential loss, and also to show others who may be in the same situation that they are not immune. Considering that songs cost, what, $1 from Itunes, she was essentially found liable for about 950 "shares" per file, if you want to look at it that way. Considering that the same file may still be getting reshared over p2p networks to this day, the monetary amount is NOT all that high at all.

She could have been found liable for millions. She got off easy by comparision, for someone stupid enough to not tell the truth and come clean on it all.

penalties are not just intended as compensation for loss.... they are also intended as deterrents against future violators. If the punishment is great enough.. the idiots will think twice about breaking the law. Not the most sound principle in all cases, but if you only had to pay $24 for the files and a penalty of $24.... ($48 total)... would that stop her from doing it again... would it stop all of the leechers out there from continuing???

I agree. She could have paid her fine and moved on. So for going to court and losing, she is now made as an example. OOPS... she rolled the dice and crapped out.

do these anti-file-sharing rules apply to countries out of USA and Europe ?

Justice in America has never been about stringing people up to make examples of them. That mentality is *supposed* to be left back in the dark ages. I mean... I'm pretty sure we could eliminate jay walking if we just executed every jay walker on the spot. But that would be excessive.

Not saying she was smart to take this whole thing to court at all... knowing the evidence against her, she definitely should have settled and she was definitely worthy of some repercussions. 220k (and attorney feeds) is a bit high, especially when there was no appreciable loss on the RIAA's part.

1. They offered to settle with her for much less. She refused and fought it. Take your medicine.

2. While I agree that there should be a difference between malicious commercialism, or profiteering, versus passive infringement in these cases. Unfortunately, the law is the law. She was stupid to fight it.

Interesting thinking

i don't believe they have laws againts this in Iran

being made an example is absolutely part of the criminal process. It's just the level of punishment you are taking issue with. The level of excess is up to the court to determine and has its proper checks and balances.

If this were an organization that made money off the transfer of these items, would the $220k seem excessive??? No.. it would probably seem very low. As was stated before, the statutes actually allow for a greater punishment. She wasn't even anywhere near the middle ground for each infraction.

Yes there is loss on RIAA's part. That is what many people are neglecting. Just becasue a song isn't a tangible product you can touch with your hands does not change that it is a product nonetheless. This woman (and many many like her) are taking something from the inventory of RIAA and it's artists and handing it out. They are delivering product without properly compensating the owner of the product. Change the song to bread, or donuts, or whatnot, and this woman is not controlling one song. Due to the ripple effect of sharing, her sharing the song could be in the factor of 10,000 or 100,000 shares of the song. How many of those are true sales that will never happen now? How many future sales of any song will never happen because the purchasers know they can get it for free elsewhere? It's not as simple as saying she didn't really do that much wrong.